Comment by pif
9 months ago
Thank you sincerely for running this experiment. Unfortunately, we didn't learn anything new.
People buy cheap. They don't buy quality, they don't buy local, they don't buy green: they buy cheap.
9 months ago
Thank you sincerely for running this experiment. Unfortunately, we didn't learn anything new.
People buy cheap. They don't buy quality, they don't buy local, they don't buy green: they buy cheap.
It's not sincere. People in different countries do pay more for local, or ethically sourced, or other principled factors but it has to be a reasonable increase.
Putting a ridiculous, almost 2x raise in such a way and pretending it's a gotcha is disingenuous.
This would have been a more interesting discussion if either of you provided any actual metrics. Which this article actually does.
Just because the article runs a bad experiment it doesn't mean it's conclusion is better than the critics of said experiment.
Otherwise, if I do a shitty survey and you critique it mine is better than yours because "I did something"
Every PowerPoint think tank will beat you like that.
Next time engage with a little more honesty and you might have a chance
1 reply →
but these increases in price aren't set arbitrarily - they're calculated based on cost and profit margin. you can't just claim that a 2x price increase is ridiculous with no context.
Well, it seems a little silly of this company to ask whether their customers would willingly bear the entire cost burden of supporting local businesses, while keeping their own profit margins just as high as ever. In a different world (one where the company owner thinks it's virtuous to buy local), they'd split the cost with the customer. That might still correspond to a 40% price increase and the conversion rate might still be zero, but at least it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest on the face of it.
1 reply →